Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 14:41:50 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
To: jy@jya.com, john gilmore <gnu@toad.com>, bill payne <billp@nmol.com>,
remailer@replay.com
cc: cypherpunks <cypherpunks@toad.com>
Subject: Re: FILED 98 MAY - 8 AM 11:31
::
Anon-To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net
This spam-proofed message was sent by Michael Froomkin.
To reply privately, send mail to my surname at law.tm
[cc's trimmed!]
Lest anyone be mislead, this filing is garbage. I find particularly
ridiculous the idea that a court can only cite cases submitted by the
parties. On the contrary, the court's duty is to cite the law correctly,
and thus to ignore anything inaccurate or irrelevant submitted by the
parties and to supplement where and when needed. Nowhere is this duty
clearer when, as here, one side is not represented by counsel; as it
happens, the court exercises this duty to supplement _to help_ the pro se
plaintiff, not hurt it.
I have not followed the pleadings very carefully in this case, so I won't
express a view on the merits except to say that having attempted to read
plaintiffs' submissions I was not able to figure out much about what merit
their case was supposed to have.
Were I to be asked by a pro se plaintiff how to best present their case in
federal court, I would say: don't try to write legalistically. Use the
case caption at the top of the first page, as provided by the rules of
court, then identify who you are, and who you are suing in the first
paragraphs, then tell your story in plain and simple English with as few
legalisms as possible. If you have a particular statute or statutes in
mind that you think were violated, do specify them, but also ask for
whatever other relief the court may find just or equitable so as to
preserve all your options.
Legalistic mumbo-jumbo is NOT required, and only gets in the way of
telling your story. Attacking the court is stupid, both because it
usually isn't justified and because it never achieves anything.
A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law |
U. Miami School of Law |
P.O. Box 248087 |
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's @#$#@ hot here.
Date: Sat, 9 May 1998 16:08:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>
To: ukcrypto@maillist.ox.ac.uk
Subject: Re: FILED 98 MAY - 8 AM 11:31 (fwd)
For readers of ukcrypto who may be unfamiliar with the US legal system, I
forward this message that I sent to some US lists about the most recent
posting on the strange claim by former workers at Sandia against the NSA
that they have been hard done by because the court had the temerity to
rely on and cite cases that were not in either party's brief. While it is
certainly true that US judges do not as a rule take quite as heavy-handed
a role in running a trial as the stereotypical English trial judge, they
are, in the famous words of Judge Posner, more than just potted plants.
A. Michael Froomkin | +1 (305) 284-4285; +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)
Associate Professor of Law |
U. Miami School of Law | froomkin@law.tm http://www.law.tm
P.O. Box 248087 |
Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA | It's #$%&+@# hot here.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
[cc's trimmed!]
Lest anyone be mislead, this filing is garbage. I find particularly
ridiculous the idea that a court can only cite cases submitted by the
parties. On the contrary, the court's duty is to cite the law correctly,
and thus to ignore anything inaccurate or irrelevant submitted by the
parties and to supplement where and when needed. Nowhere is this duty
clearer when, as here, one side is not represented by counsel; as it
happens, the court exercises this duty to supplement _to help_ the pro se
plaintiff, not hurt it.
I have not followed the pleadings very carefully in this case, so I won't
express a view on the merits except to say that having attempted to read
plaintiffs' submissions I was not able to figure out much about what merit
their case was supposed to have.
Were I to be asked by a pro se plaintiff how to best present their case in
federal court, I would say: don't try to write legalistically. Use the
case caption at the top of the first page, as provided by the rules of
court, then identify who you are, and who you are suing in the first
paragraphs, then tell your story in plain and simple English with as few
legalisms as possible. If you have a particular statute or statutes in
mind that you think were violated, do specify them, but also ask for
whatever other relief the court may find just or equitable so as to
preserve all your options.
Legalistic mumbo-jumbo is NOT required, and only gets in the way of
telling your story. Attacking the court is stupid, both because it
usually isn't justified and because it never achieves anything.
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 09:48:35 -0600
From: bill payne <billp@nmol.com>
To: jy@jya.com
CC: john gilmore <gnu@toad.com>
Subject: Froomkin
Monday 5/11/98 9:02 AM
John Young
Goldrick read the Froomkin material.
http://www.jya.com/mf050998.htm and http://www.jya.com/whp050898.htm
I have not.
Goldrick believes that what Froomkin wrote is going to stir debate.
And this will be GOOD.
What Morales and I are doing is BAD for the legal industry.
1 We are not paying lawyers
2 We are fighting HARD and EFFECTIVELY, thanks mostly to
Internet, http://www.jya.com/crypto.htm and
http://www.aci.net/kalliste/
and occasional postcards, both domestic and international. Allahu akbar.
Lawyers PRETEND to fight - so that their clients will continue to pay.
But then go out for beer after the mock fight.
Many, if not most, of the FOIA lawsuits are pro se.
Sonja Dettmanns FOIA lawsuit is often cited.
Dettmann v. United States Department of Justice, 802 F.2d 1472,
1477 (D.C. Cir. 1986); United States v. United States District Court,
717 F.2d 478, 480 (9th Cir. 1983) at http://www.jya.com/whp043098.htm
My impression is that Dettman got sloppy about filing dates and may have
somewhat lost interest in her lawsuit.
Morales and I, of course, will try not to miss filing dates or become
sloppy.
Lawyers also are known to PRETEND to cite relevant case law.
Next we must read Camps document for possible false statements. Any
false statement, of course, would be a Title 18 felony violation of the
False Statements Act.
But let's all hope for settlement before this matter gets WORSE.
Later
bill